HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Supertall Construction

    

Salesforce Tower in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • San Francisco Skyscraper Diagram
San Francisco Projects & Construction Forum
            
View Full Map

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2901  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2017, 5:49 PM
observatory observatory is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by don116 View Post
Should have been 1200 ft

We just have to wait for San Francisco without Sue Hestor.

Totally agree with you Don!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2902  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2017, 6:01 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Top Retributor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Golden Capitol
Posts: 2,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justbuildit View Post
Love this angle. The jump in height of the skyline is pretty amazing. I expected it to be high but for some reason I wasn't expecting it be as bulky as it is. That's not a criticism. In fact, I'm happy it is.
__________________
“Skyscrapers! Unhealthy ugly giants! To live and work as close as to the land is a blessing! Remember, you are not a cloud! Come down and live on the ground!”
― Mehmet Murat ildan
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2903  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2017, 10:36 PM
Justbuildit Justbuildit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by don116 View Post
Should have been 1200 ft

We just have to wait for San Francisco without Sue Hestor.
At first I was pissed when it was cut down to 1,070 feet, but the tower is very impressive as it is, so I can chill on that. 1,070 is about right for the city. This isn't Manhattan or Chicago. LA doesn't even have a tower reaching 1,200 feet, so SF has nothing to be ashamed about. I think 1,200 feet might have been too much for the skyline anyway and look kind of weird.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2904  
Old Posted Yesterday, 12:35 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,020
I think once after the current building cycle has been mostly completed, another tower 1200 feet or taller wouldn't look so out of place. I'm just not sure where, when and how though. Where could such a building be built in San Francisco without running into shadow issues, etc.? As we know, Salesforce Tower was shortened for this very reason. And because it is meant to be tallest, all the other new 700 foot plus towers around it are shortened as well. I'm still happy with the way things are turning out. I think the step up in height for the city fits well as it is as some of you said.

Last edited by SFView; Yesterday at 12:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2905  
Old Posted Yesterday, 8:18 AM
botoxic botoxic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Mission
Posts: 580
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2906  
Old Posted Yesterday, 5:27 PM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
San Francisco
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFView View Post
And because it is meant to be tallest, all the other new 700 foot plus towers around it are shortened as well.
Yes...just think, the 181 Fremont site was originally zoned for 900', then reduced to 700'. I wish that tower could have been taller, even with Salesforce at its current height.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2907  
Old Posted Yesterday, 5:56 PM
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
Love this angle. The jump in height of the skyline is pretty amazing. I expected it to be high but for some reason I wasn't expecting it be as bulky as it is. That's not a criticism. In fact, I'm happy it is.
And Oceanwide is going to be even bulkier and only slightly shorter.

By the way everyone, Sue Hestor will outlive you all, though I don't think she is actually to blame for the fact of this tower being less than 1200 feet and, as I said before, I think I rather like its current height and bulk now that I see it there in context.
__________________
The leaks are real; the news is fake.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2908  
Old Posted Yesterday, 6:00 PM
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
Yes...just think, the 181 Fremont site was originally zoned for 900', then reduced to 700'. I wish that tower could have been taller, even with Salesforce at its current height.
Yes, we can agree on that. TWO 900 ft towers beside Salesforce would have been nice and I don't quite see why they zoned the site for less except that since the 181 Fremont site is half a block closer to the Embarcadero, maybe the shaddows hitting it were more significant.

THAT, not Sue Hestor, is what this is all about I think: Shaddowing of public open spaces which, for good or bad, is not allowed by the SF Planning Code and hasn't been for some time.
__________________
The leaks are real; the news is fake.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2909  
Old Posted Yesterday, 7:38 PM
Justbuildit Justbuildit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
Yes...just think, the 181 Fremont site was originally zoned for 900', then reduced to 700'. I wish that tower could have been taller, even with Salesforce at its current height.
181 Fremont is actually 802 ft with the spire.

Last edited by Justbuildit; Yesterday at 7:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2910  
Old Posted Yesterday, 8:02 PM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
San Francisco
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justbuildit View Post
181 Fremont is actually 802 ft with the spire.
Yes, but the roofline is 700', the crown 745', and the spire 802'. Salesforce Tower is zoned for 1,000', but additions are allowed for mechanical screening, crowns, etc. Theoretically, 181 Fremont's spire might have been 1,002'. Millennium Tower was zoned for 600' and has a 45' crown. You can easily read the same thing about other existing or proposed structures.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2911  
Old Posted Yesterday, 10:31 PM
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 429
^^Unfortuntely for don, builders aren't often very interested in making their buildings taller (or in having observation decks) just because they can. They are interested in rentable square footage and that stops at the allowable height limit for occupied space. Rarely, they see the value in having a "tallest" building for the prestige factor (resulting in higher rents) but not just to satisfy skyscraper geeks.
__________________
The leaks are real; the news is fake.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2912  
Old Posted Today, 12:07 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,020
I understand the Oceanside people wanted their taller tower a bit taller than the 850 foot limit, but was denied by Planning.

Does anyone know who helped author the Proposition K Shadow Ordinance?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2913  
Old Posted Today, 4:19 AM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 1,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFView View Post
...
Does anyone know who helped author the Proposition K Shadow Ordinance?
check out page 54 (pdf)

it was placed on the ballot by 8 members of the then BofS, tho the specific author(s) I don't know

Last edited by timbad; Today at 4:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2914  
Old Posted Today, 6:07 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
San Francisco
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFView View Post
Does anyone know who helped author the Proposition K Shadow Ordinance?
In my view, a shadow ordinance has value if it isn't overly draconian. There is discussion about one in NYC and elsewhere. It's Prop M that's the problem.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2915  
Old Posted Today, 6:28 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by timbad View Post
check out page 54 (pdf)

it was placed on the ballot by 8 members of the then BofS, tho the specific author(s) I don't know
Thanks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2916  
Old Posted Today, 6:50 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
In my view, a shadow ordinance has value if it isn't overly draconian. There is discussion about one in NYC and elsewhere. It's Prop M that's the problem.
Yes, I do agree the shadow ordinance has justifiable cause. As a user of parks and playgrounds, my young daughter and I support it, at least where it makes sense. It is also probably one of the best ways to curb what some may view as excessive height in San Francisco. There are parks and public open spaces all over the city needing such protection. I've have also seen the shadow studies over Central Park in New York.

One thing I'm beginning to realize is that the crown on Salesforce doesn't really look all that transparent. It looks like it will cast a significant shadow, so is 1070 feet the actual maximum height for the building shadow, instead of 1000 feet, or 970 for the (mechanical) roof?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2917  
Old Posted Today, 7:51 AM
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 429
^^I'm beginning to wonder about even calling it a "crown". It looks like it may be decked in some way. I'm even wondering about the possibility of a helo pad or something although I still think that's unlikely because there's no evidence of a substantial stairway to reach the very top.

Derigible mooring maybe?

But with the glazing and screening it will definitely cast almost as dense a shaddow as occupied space.
__________________
The leaks are real; the news is fake.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2918  
Old Posted Today, 2:59 PM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
San Francisco
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFView View Post
One thing I'm beginning to realize is that the crown on Salesforce doesn't really look all that transparent. It looks like it will cast a significant shadow, so is 1070 feet the actual maximum height for the building shadow, instead of 1000 feet, or 970 for the (mechanical) roof?
The core rises to 970' too, so it's a definite wall. I've been thinking the same thing about the 100' crown above it, filtered sun at best. The difference was apparently between 1,070' and 1,200'.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Supertall Construction
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:37 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.